|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
There's great fear that ID, which is religion, will be forced into public school science classrooms. Correction: Darwinism has been imposed on public class rooms. The same is rabidly supported by all Atheists. ID seeks to loosen the stranglehold and re-introduce Science back into the schools. Ray Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3727 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Since Behe admits that ID isn't science as science is currently defined, do you want to change the definition of science to get it in or do you want to see the work done that will make ID fit under the current definition?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: What advances in understanding of natural phenomena has any ID researcher contributed in the past 10 years?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Correction: Darwinism has been imposed on public class rooms. The same is rabidly supported by all Atheists. ID seeks to loosen the stranglehold and re-introduce Science back into the schools. Thing is, we all know that you're talking crap, apart from maybe one or two creationists reading your crap who believed that crap already. I must have explained this to you once or twice. So why do you even bother to post? Your unevidenced recital of stupid creationist lies won't deceive anyone who isn't already thoroughly deceived. So what's the point? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
cold foreign object Correction: Darwinism has been imposed on public class rooms. The same is rabidly supported by all Atheists. ID seeks to loosen the stranglehold and re-introduce Science back into the schools. Trixie Since Behe admits that ID isn't science as science is currently defined, do you want to change the definition of science to get it in or do you want to see the work done that will make ID fit under the current definition? ID is not Science! It is creationism attempting to use scientific terminology to confuse the issue and get this pseudoscience into science classes. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2498 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
CFO writes: bluegenes writes: Given your view that chimps and ourselves don't share a common ancestor, will the study of the genomes of primates be banned in the brave new world of U.S. education that you're describing?You're going to have to hide stuff like this from the kids. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA Stuff that shows that you have less than one in a million chance of being right, Ray. Commentary presupposes that genome similarity indicates proof of descent from chimpanzees. The same is an interpretation of said evidence based on the supposition that evolution has occurred, and based on the supposition that Genesis is false. Of course, suppositions are not evidence but filters that interpret evidence. Ray The question was (in relation to the O.P. about twenty years of creationism/I.D. in the schools) would you ban or suppress information like this? It might be necessary, because most of the kids will have a better understanding of science and a better ability to reason than you do. They will understand that the video was not just about similarity in the genomes of humans and chimps, it was about a pattern of damage that can't be coincidental, and for which common descent is the only reasonable explanation. The interpretation requires no suppositions. So, IMO, it would be in your interests to suppress all comparisons of the genomes of all animals, and ban all further research into genetics. You'll also need to ban access to the internet and the world outside the U.S., because other countries will be doing this kind of research and publishing it. You can't just be expecting all students in the U.S. to sink to your own intellectual level, and misunderstand the video, although I suppose compulsory lobotomy type operations could be performed. So, will you be banning material such as the video I linked to? Edited by bluegenes, : grammar change for clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Commentary presupposes that genome similarity indicates proof of descent from chimpanzees. But we all know you're lying. Even your fellow-creationists know that evolutionists do not say that humans are descended from chimpanzees, let alone "presupposing" any such thing. You know this, because you have had this explained to you again and again. So, to summarize, you know that you're lying, we know that you're lying, other creationists know that you're lying, you know that we know that you're lying, you know that other creationists know that you're lying, other creationists know that we know that you're lying, we know that other creationists know that we know that you know that you're lying, we know that other creationists know that you're lying ... So what's the point? --- This is what baffles me about you people. You have a point of view, I understand that. You feel that it is justified to lie to promote your point of view, and I can nearly understand that. But then you lie when you know that you're going to get caught, and I don't understand that at all. Why do you lie when you know that you're going to get caught? What possible effect can it have, except that everyone reading this thread will (a) know that you're a liar (b) know that you're stupid enough to tell lies when you know that you're going to get caught. What is the point? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: Actually it should be "ID opposes evolution on religious grounds and science opposes ID on scientific grounds."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5890 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: Can astrology be stated as a valid hypothesis and tested using scientific methods? Yes. Michael Behe didn't lie. So who was it provided the obviously erroneous extrapolation that all falsified scientific theories must be taught in the classroom as 'science'? And what adjectives are appropriately applied to such persons?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5890 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
CTD left one out: Who feels compelled to misunderstand these things?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5890 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: Some might make such claims for the sake of fearmongering or in jest. We all know better. You provide much of the solution yourself.
quote: Experiment - checkObservation - check analysis - check replication - unsure off the top of my head. Certainly wouldn't be difficult. consensus building - surely you jest! Or not. This is the typical double-standard. If consensus building is a requirement of theories, there can be no new theories. It's never been a requirement of a theory in the past that it must become the most popular hypothesis. This would just turn everything over to the pollsters. Darwin, when he introduced his "theory" (his term) had none of the ingredients you mentioned for a theory. But I doubt I'll see the day when any evolutionist admits it should have been rejected until it obtained them. I get a chuckle thinking about the standard you suggest for an hypothesis you dislike. How many other things we need to forbid mention of:White holes Dinosaurs always were birds already Big Bang would have to choose a version - the popular one, or the one the pros use. Euclidean space is incompatible with Einstein's relativity (at least that's the popular consensus). If you forbid it, there's geometry, drafting, and a whole lot of other subjects get gutted. I could go on quite a while. But even throwing out that which has been falsified is too much for your side. Vestigial organs - gone! Horse ancestors - gone! False mutation stories - gone! In fact, you all might not have much left at all if it were done half honestly. And what odd classrooms we'd have then: biology students learning biology without wasting half their time on make-believe stories. I'm sure that's enough to make the informed evolutionist shudder. Now just for fun, anyone wanting to score points with me is welcome to provide a link to any successful test of "Natural Selection". Shoot, I'll settle for more unsuccessful tests. I have a book which lists some failures, but it's kind of old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5890 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: It looks like I chose my words in a less than optimal manner. In the context of the mythical strict "evolution" which doesn't include abiogenesis, the essential conclusion of ID does not conflict. Naturally, when it comes to Orthodox Evolutionism and ID, the two are very much opposed and will remain so. There have even been evolutionists who proposed evolution without a single common ancestor, so taking things that direction is fruitless. It is still a fact that there are IDers who believe in macroevolution. Celebrate this while you can before they are exposed to science and become more educated. As long as I'm clarifying, I'll point out that I never excluded anyone from ID. I said that most TE's would fit better in that party than they fit in their present party. That's inclusionary - not exclusionary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It seems that it is your definition of ID that is mythical. The definition used in "Of Pandas and People" certainly conflicts with evolution. Numerous ID works attack evolution (Behe, Wells, Dembski etc.). The ID list of "Darwin doubters" signed a statement doubting evolution. Indeed if ID was only about abiogenesis and not evolution, Darwin wouldn't figure. You haven't produced one major figure in ID who agrees with your definition. The problem is not your phrasing. It is that what you are saying is an obvious falsehood to anyone who knows anything about the ID movement.
quote: Your definition excludes all the creationists too. In fact it excludes almost all the major figures in ID. What makes you think that you know better than them ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
The point is that ID cannot be scientifically tested anymore than any other pseudoscience What about the fossil record -what does it show? Sudden appearance and stasis with variation within fairly narrow limits.Extinction for some or continuance to this day relatively unchanged over hundreds of millions of years. The only things that really change a lot are the things evolutionists imagine are related but that is only because they have this apriori adherence to naturalism so they must all be related -after all they have a common ancestor don't they -anyone with a brain knows that, don't they?No I'm afraid the evidence is against gradualism -it's not the tree of life, it's a lawn of life with some blades shorter than others. So in this case, evolution is the type of pseudoscience you must be talking about -the evidence is against it.As for ID, the evidence matches the theory which is why it is infinately more satisfying a theory. The postulate IS feasible -Helloooo!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2498 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
CTD writes: This is the typical double-standard. If consensus building is a requirement of theories, there can be no new theories. It's never been a requirement of a theory in the past that it must become the most popular hypothesis. This would just turn everything over to the pollsters. Consensus building is not a requirement of new theories, but consensus amongst the experts in the relevant field is necessary before a theory is taught in schools as the most likely explanation of the current evidence for whatever area it concerns. However, for a theory to be mentioned in the education system as an alternative to the consensus theory of the times, it's by no means necessary to have anywhere near half of the experts in the field behind it. Perhaps 5 to 10% might be sufficient. So, if the I.D. movement ever does develop its idea/hypothesis into a theory, then they should do what all other proponents of new theories do, which is to present whatever supportive evidence they've found to their colleagues, and start winning over support with this evidence. No new scientific theory that has proved important in the past has had its proponents attempting to teach it to children before convincing a substantial proportion of adult experts.
Darwin, when he introduced his "theory" (his term) had none of the ingredients you mentioned for a theory. But I doubt I'll see the day when any evolutionist admits it should have been rejected until it obtained them. It was rejected by many, and sometimes for valid reasons in terms of the times. There was no known way for the sun to burn for long enough without exhausting its fuel was one reasonable objection, for example. Darwin presented his theory for adult consideration, but I know of no example of him trying to get it taught in the classrooms of the time. Religions characteristically indoctrinate children, which is why we see different ones prevailing generation after generation in different areas of the world. The approach of the Discovery Institute is typical of a religious movement. Popular proselytizing, and an early attempt to indoctrinate kids before there's even a theory agreed upon. The lack of a coherent theory is inevitable, as no-one will be able to decide what the designer actually designs, and what he leaves to evolution. As they'll be no more evidence for one school of thought than another, attempting to build a consensus theory within the I.D. movement will just be like having a theological argument on what Allah does or doesn't do in the universe, when there's not even any evidence of Allah's existence, let alone his actions. I predict strong sectarian divisions as the movement crumbles.
CTD writes: Now just for fun, anyone wanting to score points with me is welcome to provide a link to any successful test of "Natural Selection". Shoot, I'll settle for more unsuccessful tests. I have a book which lists some failures, but it's kind of old. Natural selection on a simple level would be easy to test, so do you mean evidence of natural selection as the driving force behind species formation? If so, you're backing beliefs that have only a 1 in 250 chance of being true just on the basis of this one piece of research.
quote: The full article here: http://www.physorg.com/news11181.html
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024